Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

I answered the question. Why is your side so obtuse? Strawmans and playing dumb. Also, the rock doesn't change perspective like everything else in
the 3-D realm. What a laughing stock your comments will be when it's disclosed that Apollo was faked to ease Cold War tensions and "bankrupt"
Russia.

It does change perspective very slightly. One reason we are expecting a greater perspective change is that House Rock appears to our eyes to be much
closer than it really is. As I mentioned, that illusion is compounded by the fact that the moon is virtually devoid of any atmosphere, and the usual
"depth perception" visual clue of far-way objects being hazier than close-up objects doe not apply here.
No haze = the rock seeming closer than it really is.

So what we think is a car-sized rock relatively close to the camera is really a house-sized rock that is 5 times (or more) farther from the camera
than we think. Therefore, being farther away, it will not exhibit the same degree of changes in perspective that we expect a closer rock would.

Plus, as I also mentioned, the rocks behind that rock do in fact exhibit a very noticeable change in perspective, so that alone proves it isn't a flat
screen.

edit on 5/15/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I answered the question. Why is your side so obtuse? Strawmans and playing dumb. Also, the rock doesn't change perspective like everything else in
the 3-D realm. What a laughing stock your comments will be when it's disclosed that Apollo was faked to ease Cold War tensions and "bankrupt"
Russia.

What's the strawman here? You linked a video claiming the perspective did not change in the film and these guys demonstrated that it did. What is
the argument that someone is claiming you made that you did not make?

By the way, you can take the two stills captured by Soylent Green on page 39 and free view them stereoscopically and see the house rock in 3D (on the
right side especially.)

You see the cut scene? What's that about? Why doesn't the rock change perspective like anything else? Weird...

As I already showed, that "cut scene" only appears in the video from the hoax-promoter, not it the other versions of the Apollo 15 rover footage
available.

Here is the video you original posted from The glitch/cut scene you talk about at the 1:10 mark:

However, I think the issue is only with the video you posted. Another version of the footage (shown below) does not have a similar cut scene. The
part of the video showing the large rock where the cut scene/glitch was seen in your video starts at about the 1:19 mark of this version of the Apollo
15 footage -- but there is no glitch in this version:

So if you are wondering what that cut scene/glitch is all about, you may need to ask the person who put together the video you originally posted. I
assume that it is nothing meaningful -- just something to do with the way he edited his video.

edit on 5/15/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

After everything, it still comes down to one thing. We could NOT chance failure... Geopolitically, we COULD NOT FAIL getting to the moon and everyone
at the time thought it was, if not impossible, highly improbable that we could get people there and back safely.

I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

If you don't see the change in perspective on the large rock I'll accept that for the sake of argument.

But there is no way you can claim that you don't see that the rocks in the foreground and the rocks in the background change apparent positions in
the different frames. So, as everyone is saying there is no way it could be a painted background as claimed in that video. What is your argument
from there? The "house rock" is just a huge freestanding painted image propped up somehow on the alleged set?

Here is a comparison of one of those images of HR with a still from the bobbypurify's video, and I hope he can agree that we are dealing with the
same rock:

Here are a couple of frames from that series of images showing HR, with the view changing as it moves past it from a different angle compared with the
16mm footage.

I'm sure that anyone who is paying attention can see that the view of HR changes, as does the background, I actually had to shrink down the 2nd
image, as it was closer to HR than the first one and therefore larger in the image.

And as for another of bobby's unfounded claims, that the 16mm footage is 'edited just as it gets interesting' then you really need to speak to the
person uploading the footage, not the cameraman.

Here is all the video footage shot by the 16 camera:

Fast forward to 1:01:57, the start of the HR footage. Continue to watch it as the LRV spends several minutes traversing to station 13. See how long it
takes before there's a change in film.

After everything, it still comes down to one thing. We could NOT chance failure... Geopolitically, we COULD NOT FAIL getting to the moon and everyone
at the time thought it was, if not impossible, highly improbable that we could get people there and back safely.

I know that buzz and neil DID go into space because my dad picked their capsule up in the middle of the ocean, with them in it.

That doesn't mean they landed on the moon, that means they went into space.

Jaden

For the same reason THEY couldn't risk faking it because they had no idea when another country could send a probe, mission or build a telescope to
image the sites.

So what if they had faked it, if the Russians landed 2-5 or 10 years after or even now and could show the USA didn't, after all they had a lander
design and prototypes built !

So an Apollo spacecraft on the moon is not visible with a modern telescope in space (Hubble), but an Apollo spacecraft in space is visible with an old
1969 telescope from Earth ? Do you hapen to have the picture ?

So an Apollo spacecraft on the moon is not visible with a modern telescope in space (Hubble),

If you know anything about this subject, as you pretend to do, or have bothered to read the thread and the information in it, you will be fully aware
that the HST does not have the resolving power capable of seeing Apollo hardware on the lunar surface.

The LRO does however, and Indian, Chinese and Japanese probes have provided corroborating evidence for Apollo. You may remember I posted this before
but somehow you managed not to see it.

but an Apollo spacecraft in space is visible with an old 1969 telescope from Earth ? Do you hapen to have the picture ?

Do you know how to use google?

Objects in orbit around Earth are visible from the ground using telescopes. You can see some of them with the naked eye.

You want photos of Apollo en route to the moon taken from Earth? Here's a website for you to ignore:

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.